Techdirt

It's seems like just yesterday that I was writing about how Denuvo's DRM, the once-vaunted but since defeated DRM unicorn, had been patched to Version 4 with the company proclaiming that it was once again out ahead of the pirate groups that had cracked its previous versions. Oh, wait. That actually was yesterday.Anywho, the latest version of Denuvo is being used on several recently released games, out since January, with much made about how those games were once again taking quite a bit of time before cracks for them appeared in the wild. With the company pushing the narrative that protecting the first few weeks of a game's release was where the value of Denuvo really stood, companies using the DRM likely cheered. This week, however, things took a familiar turn for the DRM unicorn.

As you probably know, each month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posts its "Stupid Patent of the Month" post, highlighting particularly egregious patents that never should have been approved and/or particularly egregious patent litigation around those patents. You might know about this even if you don't follow the EFF's own website, because we almost always repost those posts here on Techdirt, under EFF's Creative Commons' license. In fact, last summer, we reposted EFF's article about US Patent 6,690,400, held by Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. ("GEMSA"), an Australian company that has all the hallmarks of a classic patent troll. You can read that post for the details of the patent in question, but suffice it to say, EFF described it as "storage cabinets on a computer" and GEMSA has sued dozens of companies, rarely explaining how they possibly infringe. For example, in suing Airbnb, all GEMSA notes is that the site's user interface "infringes one or more of the claims of the '400 patent."Not surprisingly, GEMSA was not particularly thrilled about being named the holder of a "stupid patent of the month" or to have EFF make fun of its lawsuits. Unlike, say, IBM, who upon being named a stupid patentholder of the month appeared to see the error of its ways, GEMSA decided to really double down. It went to court. In Australia. And got an order telling EFF to take down the article and barring EFF from publishing anything about any of GEMSA's patents.Now, we've written multiple times in the past about Australia's questionable views on internet free speech and prior restraint. However, we've also noted -- quite directly, that the SPEECH Act quite clearly bars such Australian court orders from being valid in the US.It appears that the good folks at the EFF will now be putting that to the test. They've filed for declaratory judgment in federal court in the Northern District of California to have the court say that the court order from Down Under is unenforceable here. You can check out the full filing here or embedded below.The filing goes into fairly great detail about just how really upset GEMSA is. It literally claims that calling its patent "stupid" is "misleading" because the patent "is not in fact 'stupid.'" Very convincing. There are also some bizarre conspiracy theory claims, including saying that the filings in some of GEMSA's lawsuits against Airbnb and Zillow "are not available in the public domain" despite them being available on PACER (and "GEMSA's own press release announcing its first wave of lawsuits attaches a copy of one of the complaints and explicitly notes that they are public records available on PACER.")Whether or not Australians' somewhat twisted views on free speech say that you cannot give your opinion that a patent is stupid, in the US that's very clearly protected speech. Furthermore, here in the US, you cannot bar someone from ever talking about your patents. That's known as prior restraint and, as good old Walter Sobchak from the Big Lebowski eloquently stated: "The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."That said, as EFF notes, without a declaratory judgment, GEMSA can continue to threaten EFF with enforcement (it is already demanding that EFF remove the article, pay it money, and get others to remove links). Or, worse, GEMSA might use the Australian court order to get the article delisted from search engines. There is a real possibility of chilling effects:

XenApp is an industry-leading solution for virtual application delivery, allowing people to access Windows apps on any device, anywhere. With XenDesktop, business is borderless, giving employees the freedom to work from anywhere while also cutting IT costs. With XenApp built in, XenDesktop can deliver full desktops or just applications to any device. These tools, combined with XenServer create an extensive server virtualization and hypervisor management platform that greatly reduces costs. The $39 Citrix Xen Cloud Mastery Bundle will teach you how to implement and manage the Citrix tools effectively and effeciently.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

As we mentioned a few months ago, we are currently in a First Amendment fight for our very survival against Shiva Ayyadurai, who has announced his desire to shut us down for explaining, in detail, why we feel he did not invent email (given the long history of the development of email that preceded Ayyadurai's particular software application). Ayyadurai has retained the lawyer Charles Harder in this lawsuit, and Harder has been successful in getting another media property, much larger than Techdirt, to go bankrupt and be sold off in the face of a number of similar lawsuits. Last month, we asked for the case to be dismissed for a variety of reasons, including under California's anti-SLAPP law. Ayyadurai has opposed these motions. Yesterday, we filed our reply to Ayyadurai's opposition.We recommend reading our reply carefully, along with all of the other filings in the case, and familiarizing yourself with all of the details in order to make up your own mind. If you believe that free speech and a free press matter in holding powerful people accountable -- or if you are worried about claims by public officials that it's time to "open up" or change our libel laws to go after a press that may report less than flattering things about them -- then please consider contributing to our Survival Fund at ISupportJournalism.com. As I have noted before, this lawsuit has been a massive distraction. It has already forced us to delay multiple projects that we were working on, and to postpone other projects that we were scheduled to begin. It has, similarly, limited our time and resources to continue reporting on a variety of topics that we would normally cover. In short, no matter what the outcome of the actual case, the lawsuit alone has already been tremendously costly for us in terms of how we operate.At a time like this when truly independent reporting is so important, especially on a variety of matters concerning free speech online, net neutrality, copyright, patents, innovation and more, we hope you'll consider supporting our continued ability to report on these topics.

So if you've not been paying attention, broadband ISPs (with help from new FCC boss Ajit Pai) are slowly but surely working to eliminate oversight of one of the least-competitive sectors in American industry. It began with Pai killing off a number of FCC efforts piecemeal, including plans to beef up cable box competition, investigate zero rating, and FCC attempts to stop prison telco monopolies from ripping off inmate families. From there, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to kill FCC privacy protections for broadband consumers. Next up: reversing the FCC's 2015 Title II reclassification and gutting net neutrality.Between this, cable's growing monopoly over broadband (including the rise in usage caps), the sunsetting of Comcast NBC merger conditions and a looming wave of new megamergers and sector consolidation, you should begin to notice there's a bit of a perfect storm brewing on the horizon when it comes to broadband and media competition, anti-competitive behavior, and oversight -- one that's not going to be particularly enjoyable for broadband consumers, or the numerous companies that compete and/or do business with the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.To that end, most of the internet industry's heaviest hitters -- including Reddit, Google, Amazon, and Netflix -- under the umbrella of the Internet Association (IA) -- met with the FCC this week to urge Ajit Pai to keep the existing net neutrality rules in place. At the meeting, IA CEO Michael Beckerman and General Counsel Abigail Slater argued that things are working well with the rules in place, and that the long-standing industry claim that net neutrality hurt broadband investment is a canard:

As long-time Techdirt readers will know, Thailand does love it some lèse-majesté punishments. The country's lèse-majesté law -- literally "injured majesty" -- is used to protect Thailand's monarch from any kind of insult, however slight. It's been applied time and again over the years -- we first wrote about it back in 2007. In the past, the Thai government has done all the obvious things like demanding that local ISPs block sites, snooping on its citizens to find out who might be disrespecting the king, and threatening to throw even foreigners in prison for a very long time. But its latest move on the lèse-majesté front is rather a bold one: it has forbidden its citizens from having any online contact with three critics of the Thai monarchy and government. As the Guardian reports:

We've just written about widespread frustration at the slow pace of the shift to open access publishing of academic papers, and about how some major funding organizations are trying to address that. Open access aims to make entire publications publicly available, and that is meeting considerable resistance from traditional publishers who derive their healthy profits from charging for subscriptions. Rather than continue to tackle publishers head-on, an interesting new project seeks instead to liberate only a particular part of each article, albeit an important one. The new Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) seeks to promote the unrestricted availability of the list of citations that form a key part of most academic articles:

I will occasionally get a common question when discussing stories about trademark bullies: why do these bullies actually do this? The easy answer is, of course, because it works. And it works on many levels. For example, the primary targets in actual lawsuits can be bullied out of using names and terms for their businesses or brands, so it works on that level. But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. Where being a trademark bully really works is when it makes lawsuits unnecessary, because other businesses and people are so fearful of the bully tactic.To see that in practice, one need only look at the brewery formerly named Mooselick Brewing Co., which is now rebranding itself as Granite Roots Brewing without putting up a fight against, you guessed it, Moosehead Breweries.

By now everyone should know that the IOC and USOC have completely perverted the concept of trademark law surrounding any mentioning of the Olympic Games. It's gotten so bad that the USOC has taken to threatening businesses that tweet out congratulatory messages to athletes, even when those businesses supported those athletes getting to the Olympics in the first place. The USOC seems to be under the impression that tweeting about the Olympics as a business is trademark infringement. It's not. It never was.Yet those social media guidelines put forward by the USOC still exist and, coupled with the USOC's appetite for legal threats and lawsuits, that's typically enough to keep companies from challenging it on the matter. But one carpet cleaning business in Minnesota actually sued the USOC over the social media policy and its violation of that and other companies' free speech rights. Sadly that company, Zereorez, has had that suit tossed by the court on jurisdictional grounds, with the court essentially telling the company to come back after it's been sued by the USOC.

By now everyone should know that the IOC and USOC have completely perverted the concept of trademark law surrounding any mentioning of the Olympic Games. It's gotten so bad that the USOC has taken to threatening businesses that tweet out congratulatory messages to athletes, even when those businesses supported those athletes getting to the Olympics in the first place. The USOC seems to be under the impression that tweeting about the Olympics as a business is trademark infringement. It's not. It never was.Yet those social media guidelines put forward by the USOC still exist and, coupled with the USOC's appetite for legal threats and lawsuits, that's typically enough to keep companies from challenging it on the matter. But one carpet cleaning business in Minnesota actually sued the USOC over the social media policy and its violation of that and other companies' free speech rights. Sadly that company, Zereorez, has had that suit tossed by the court on jurisdictional grounds, with the court essentially telling the company to come back after it's been sued by the USOC.

Taser -- manufacturer of law enforcement's favorite electronic battle weapon and the "I'm not a doctor but I play one in courtroom proceedings" creator of arrestee-specific medical condition "excited delirium" -- is branching out and (sort of) rebranding.It's not like Taser doesn't have the less-lethal market sewn up. Its titular device is in the latter stages of genericide -- a catch-all term for any sort of stun gun. It's been busy building a new market: law enforcement body cameras. Under the name Axon, Taser has introduced a number of body-worn cameras, some of them with more advanced feature sets that tie their activation to weapon deployment by officers.Now, Axon is hoping to increase its dominance of the body camera market. Its latest move is to offer free cameras and footage storage to any law enforcement agency that requests it. The pay-nothing-now offer lasts for a year. Once the offer expires, agencies are free to look elsewhere for cameras.But will they? It seems unlikely. Axon claims it will make it easy to migrate stored recordings from its Evidence.com access platform, but data migration of this type is easier said than done. Add to that the fact that this is no ordinary data. It includes footage needed as evidence in criminal trials, etc. Sticking to a system officers and supervisors are already used to would seem like the most prudent move, even if it's not the most affordable option.Axon has gathered a lot of positive press over the past few days. The offer allows cash-strapped law enforcement agencies the opportunity to get into the accountability and transparency business with no initial investment. But this push to deploy "free*" cameras isn't really about cameras. Matt Stroud -- who has tracked Taser/Axon for years via FOIA requests -- points out at The Daily Dot that this business model is nothing new. Axon has been giving away cameras for a few years now. The real moneymaker is access, storage and licensing.Stroud's FOIA work has uncovered multiple cases where agencies have received free cameras. Axon is only charging agencies for Evidence.com usage. Albuquerque's police department received $500,000 worth of cameras for free. But it's paying $223,000 a year just for access to Evidence.com. Storage provided by Axon also comes at a premium: $1.50/GB. More cameras means more storage, which means this part of the revenue stream will just keep growing. On top of that, there's a yearly licensing fee that increases with the number of cameras in use.It's an interesting approach: one that gives away the finite (cameras) but charges a premium for the infinite (licensing, access, storage). But here's the actual insidiousness of the deals Axon's making:

If you want to understand what's wrong with the American broadband industry, you need look no further than Tennessee. The state is consistently ranked as one of the least connected, least competitive broadband markets in the country, thanks in large part to Comcast and AT&T's stranglehold over politicians like Marsha Blackburn. Lawmakers like Blackburn have let Comcast and AT&T lobbyists quite literally write protectionist state laws for the better part of a decade with an unwavering, singular focus: protecting incumbent revenues from competition and market evolution.The negative impact of this pay-to-play legislature is non-negotiable. One state-run study last year ranked Tennessee 40th in terms of overall broadband investment and availability (pdf), and found that 13% of households (or 834,545 Tennesseans) lack access to any high-speed broadband internet service whatsoever. The study found that the vast majority of Tennessee residents still get internet access through slower services like DSL, wireless or dial-up connections, either because that's all that's available, or because they couldn't afford faster options.Like twenty other states, Tennessee long ago passed a state law hamstringing towns and cities looking to improve regional broadband networks. As a result, popular municipal broadband providers like Chattanooga's utility-run ISP, EPB, have been banned from expanding its up to 10 Gbps offerings into any more markets. Attempts to repeal the law earlier this year went nowhere after mammoth pressure from incumbent ISP lobbyists. When that didn't work, one lawmaker tried to pass a compromise bill that would have allowed EPB to expand into just one neighboring county.That proposal was shot down as well, one of the dissenting votes being that of Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive.Tennessee residents have increasingly seen through Tennessee's unwavering fealty to some of the most despised brands in America. Some annoyed state residents have gone so far as to spend their own money to wire the state glacially, hilltop by hilltop. In a feeble attempt to try and placate those tired of expensive, slow broadband, Tennessee lawmakers recently passed HB 0529 or the "Broadband Accessibility Act of 2017." The centerpiece of the bill: throwing $45 million in additional subsidies at ISPs, the majority of which will be enjoyed by AT&T.Motherboard correctly points out that the state banned EPB from expanding service to those same users without any cost to taxpayers, but was willing to throw additional subsidies at two giant companies with a mixed track record on putting government subsidies to work:

Learning how to best manage a team while tackling projects can be invaluable in any work setting. Grab the $39 deal on the Project Management Institute Training Bundle and be well on your way to becoming a project management master. You will learn how to properly plan projects within allotted budgets, how to select the right team, how to best manage risk and much more. The courses will have you prepared to sit the Associate in Project Management (CAPM) Certification from the Project Management Institute (exam fees not included), which will earn you internationally recognized qualifications.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Yesterday, we wrote about reports that Arturo Di Modica, the artist behind the famous "Charging Bull" statue near Wall St., was claiming that the new "Fearless Girl" statue that was put up in front of the bull infringed on his copyrights. As we noted in our piece, the only possible claim we could see was a weak moral rights claim, under VARA -- the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. However, as we noted in an update to the post (with a helping hand from law professor James Grimmelmann) VARA shouldn't apply. If you read the actual law, it applies to works created after VARA went into effect or to works created before the law went into effect if the title to the artwork has not been transferred from the artist.But, of course, the history here is that Di Modica dumped the statue in front of the NY Stock Exchange as a surprise in 1989, only to have it moved by the city and given a "temporary permit" in a nearby park that is continually renewed. 1989 is, obviously, prior to the enactment of VARA in 1990. And, Grimmelmann argues, Di Modica "transferred the title by accession when he installed it."Of course, Di Modica's lawyers don't appear to care. Late Wednesday, the letter that they sent Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York, was released, and their legal theories... are... well... let's just say some might compare them to what comes out of the back of a bull. Yes, it does include a VARA claim, but it's not the main claim of the letter. However, since that was the focus of our post yesterday, let's deal with that one first:

So we've been talking a lot about new FCC boss Ajit Pai and his plan to not only kill net neutrality, but eliminate FCC oversight of broadband providers almost entirely. Reports recently surfaced indicating Pai has been busy meeting with large ISPs behind closed doors to replace hard net neutrality rules with "voluntary commitments" from ISPs (insert laugh track). This won't cause any problems, Pai and ISP lobbyists have argued in perfect unison, because the FTC will rush in to protect broadband consumers -- and net neutrality -- in the wake of the FCC's dismantling.We've already noted how this entire narrative is exquisitely-crafted bullshit.The FTC doesn't have any real authority over broadband without Congress passing a new law, which ISP campaign contributions will ensure won't be happening. And thanks to some lovely tap dancing by AT&T lawyers (looking to help the company dodge accountability for lying about throttling), a recent court ruling declared that broadband ISPs are largely immune to FTC oversight courtesy of common carrier exemptions. Former FCC staffer Gigi Sohn drove that point home this week in a piece over at The Verge:

The recent saga of Denuvo DRM has been fairly fast moving as these things go. Once thought to be the DRM unicorn that video game makers had dreamed of for years, the time it took for cracks to be released for Denuvo-protected games shrunk to months, then weeks, and finally days. It seemed for all the world like Denuvo was destined for the grave.But these things don't always progress in linear fashion. The recently released Bioware title Mass Effect: Andromeda was patched recently for a variety of gameplay functions. Unheralded in the patch notes was the updated version of Denuvo included within it. That updated version appears to be setting back cracking groups, forcing Mass Effect pirates into using the older, pre-patched version of the game.

For several years now, we've put out the steady warning that the alcohol industries have a trademark problem. In some ways, it's one of those kinda sorta good problems to have in a goods industry, in that the reason there is a problem at all is because of how well the alcohol business is doing. Not just well in terms of total sales, but also in terms of being an ecosystem that encourages new businesses, startups, and expansion. Those are all signs of a healthy market, but with that comes the trademark problem. With so many new players and and a finite amount of language with which those players can brand themselves, trademark disputes in what has previously been known to be an IP congenial industry have exploded in number.It's become bad enough that the North Bay Business Journal in Santa Rosa, California, smack dab in the middle of wine country, conducted a written Q&A with a couple of intellectual property attorneys to get their thoughts. You can practically hear the frustration at how this is all progressing dripping off of their responses.For instance, when asked about just how many more trademark disputes there are now than there were before, one attorney stated:

This is an interesting opinion from the Texas Supreme Court on citing Wikipedia as a dictionary. The underlying case involves an article in D Magazine titled "The Park Cities Welfare Queen." The article purports to show that the plaintiff, Rosenthal, "has figured out how to get food stamps while living in the lap of luxury." After publication, evidence emerged that the plaintiff had not committed welfare fraud. She sued the magazine for defamation.The appeals court denied the magazine's anti-SLAPP motion in part because it held the term "Welfare Queen," as informed by the Wikipedia entry, could be defamatory. The Texas Supreme Court affirms the anti-SLAPP denial, but it also criticizes the appeals court for not sufficiently examining the entire article's gist. Along the way, the court opines on the credibility and validity of Wikipedia as a dictionary. TL;DR = the Supreme Court says don't treat Wikipedia like a dictionary.Apologies for the block quoting, but here's the detail:

The absolute scariest cab ride of my life happened in Rome a few years back, and I'd prefer not to relive that experience, but apparently I might not have much of a choice next time I'm in Italy, as the country recently banned Uber completely, claiming that it was "unfair competition." Now, let's be clear: there are many, many reasons to not like or trust Uber. You certainly have every right to not like the way it goes about its business or the way it treats drivers. You can refuse to use the service all you want and you can tweet #DeleteUber and whatever else you like... and yet you still should be concerned about this.Uber isn't being blocked in Italy because of its business practices. It's being blocked in Italy because the taxicabs there don't like the competition, and a court has ruled that those cabs shouldn't face competition. Again, no matter what you think of Uber's own business practices, it's pretty damn clear that everywhere that Uber or similar services operate, what everyday people tend to get are better options for transportation. It makes it easier for people to get a ride when they need it, it adds much needed supply to the market, and it tends to be a better overall experience (and there's at least some evidence that it also prevents drunk driving).In the end, when it comes to innovation, our general stance around here is that what you need more than anything else is competition. Competition drives innovation. It drives better customer service. Having courts come in and block competition in favor of an organization famous for limiting the number of competitors in the market is never going to be a good thing. If you're upset by Uber's business practices, target those business practices. But doing an outright ban on competition doesn't seem to help anyone, other than the legacy taxi providers.

You're probably quite familiar with the famous Charging Bull statue (also known as the "Wall Street Bull") which is found in Bowling Green Park right off Wall St. in lower Manhattan. The statue was originally placed there as a "guerilla sculpture" by artist Arturo Di Modica without permission.

It appears the DOJ will no longer be in the business of policing the police. A memo issued by every cop's new best friend, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, states the DOJ will be doing more to empower police and will conduct fewer civil rights investigations of law enforcement agencies. On one hand, it makes sense to have the locals handle their own problems. On the other hand, the locals have repeatedly shown a willingness to ignore abusive policing until the feds are forced to step in.It may be difficult to roll back DOJ agreements and oversight of investigated agencies immediately. It may, in fact, be impossible. Those consent decrees that have made their way through the court system on the way to being put into force would take some serious litigating to roll back. It's not clear the DOJ's interested in attempting an expensive clawback of police oversight and policy changes.It's those that haven't been formalized through this process that are in danger of being scaled back, if not removed completely. The DOJ has filed a motion asking for time to review its proposed consent decree with the Baltimore PD in light of AG Sessions' memo. The DOJ also just finished wrapping up an investigation of the Chicago PD, but statements made by Sessions and President Trump indicate the White House and DOJ are more interested in solving Chicago's crime problem, rather than its police problem.Sessions himself has no interest in police misconduct or systemic civil liberties violations and abuse the DOJ has uncovered over the past eight years. He claimed the lengthy investigation the DOJ's civil rights division performed produced nothing more than "anecdotal" evidence. He made this claim while admitting he hasn't read any of the investigative reports.By not reading the reports, Sessions won't have to deal with contradictory thoughts while shifting the DOJ towards its new position as a law enforcement booster club. Adam Serwer of The Atlantic points out the vast amount of denial Sessions is swimming in.

We all know that driving while distracted is dangerous. Keep your devices handy and hands-free with the $13 ARMOR-X One-Lock Air Vent Car Mount. Its easy one-lock mounting system locks to your phone and hooks up to the air vent quickly for immediate access, and it rotates 360 degrees so you can find the optimal viewing angle. It's designed to work with most vehicle vent blades and can hold most cell phones even in their cases.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

There's been a lot of hype and confusion about Congress's decision (supported by the new FCC) to kill off the broadband privacy rules that were put in place late last year by the Tom Wheeler FCC, though they had not yet been officially implemented. As we noted, it's an unfortunate exaggeration (pushed by some well meaning folks) to say that ISPs will now be packaging up and selling individuals' specific browsing history. That's just not true. Some people responded to us by noting that just because that's not how the ad market works today, it doesn't mean that won't change. But... that's probably not the case. Don't get me wrong: getting rid of these privacy rules is still a really bad idea, but let's look a little deeper at what ISPs can't do, before we explain why those privacy rules are still important.First off, as we noted, the market for internet data is not in sharing some sort of dossier on what you like, but rather connecting into a marketplace, where the information is shared for the purpose of displaying ads, but not in a way where your actual info goes to the advertiser. That is, when you, say, go shopping for a camera, and then start seeing ads for cameras everywhere, it's not that the camera makers now know that you, Joe Schmoe, like cameras. Instead, what happens is that some company took that info (Joe Schmoe is shopping for cameras) and that gets put into a marketplace where some real time bidding happens for ad placement, such that when Joe Schmoe visits another site, there's a near instantaneous call out for who will pay the most for the ad slot, and with that info is, effectively, this otherwise anonymous person was just looking at cameras, and the camera company will say "I'll pay an extra $0.0002 for that ad compared to the TV maker" and thus the camera ad gets shown. The camera maker or retailer never knows its Joe Schmoe, and doesn't somehow "know" anything more about Joe.But... but... but... people say. There are data brokers out there who do sell more personalized profiles on you. And... that's true. Many of those companies are pretty awful. But that's unrelated to any of this. And, no, the ISPs can't just turn themselves into the next big data brokers.Even without the privacy rules, there are rules that prevent that from happening. Section 222 of the Communications Act still stops carriers from selling your info. Of course, that's part of Title II of the Telecom act, so if the FCC or Congress figure out a way to roll back Title II, there is at least some greater concern. Separately, as Orin Kerr notes at the Washington Post, certain other "surveillance" activities by service providers are limited by the Wiretap Act -- and there are some fairly stiff penalties should a broadband provider end up on the wrong side of that. Kerr (and others) have used these laws to suggest that the privacy rules repeal isn't that big of a deal. That's inaccurate.Both of these things can be true: repealing the privacy rules does not magically create a free-for-all with your ISPs out there "selling" your browsing history to the highest bidder and the privacy rules were useful and should not have been repealed.The issues are -- as with so many things -- a bit more nuanced than folks on either side of the debate are making them out to be. Again, part of this goes back to the way in which online advertising works and the ways in which your data is mined and used.Broadband providers have a fairly terrible history in respecting your privacy. No, they haven't been directly selling browsing history dossiers, but they do have long histories of snooping on you in ways that were (1) totally hidden from you and (2) extremely difficult to block. Both AT&T and Verizon, for example, were caught using nearly undetectable "super cookies" to secretly track users across multiple devices and networks -- which (despite promises that they couldn't be abused) were abused by advertisers.And this gets back to another point that I've made repeatedly over the years: privacy is not a "thing," rather privacy is about a set of trade-offs, in which individuals recognize that they give up some privacy for some benefit and then get to decide if it's worth the trade-off. The extreme example I've used in the past is that if you leave your home to go to the store to buy some milk, you are giving up a tiny bit of privacy. Someone may see you leaving your house. They may recognize you. They may see that you're buying some milk. For most people, it's easy to judge the costs and benefits of that trade-off and to decide that the minimal loss of privacy is worth it for the ability to buy the milk (some people -- such as celebrities with paparazzi followings -- may view the trade-off differently).But the really important thing in privacy settings is making sure that two things are true for individuals: (1) that they have the information necessary to weigh the benefits and costs of the trade-offs and (2) they have some control over those trade-offs and can adjust at least some aspects of them, by having the options be more granular and controllable.The problem with ISP snooping and the related advertising efforts is that neither of these conditions tends to be met. The snooping is done in a way that is surreptitious and not at all clear to the end user, and their ability to control how it's done, and perhaps change some of the factors involved, is basically non-existent. The FCC's rules (somewhat weakly) were put in place to change that. First, they required more transparency about what your access provider was actually doing and, second, gave the end user more control by requiring opt-ins to particularly "expensive" behavior and opt-outs to less privacy-invasive offerings.This is what makes people -- quite reasonably -- upset. If they were given transparent understanding of what was happening, with at least some ability to control the situation, then they could decide for themselves what information is worth giving up for what services. But, instead, the internet access industry and the online ad industry apparently continue to believe that the only way they can do what they want to do is to trick people into letting themselves be spied on, and to hide the reality of the situation. This is dumb, and will do much more harm than good to the internet in the long run.The danger here is not so much that Verizon will be selling me the websites that you visited. It's that these ISPs, which get tremendous insight into where you surf, will make use of that data in ways you don't understand and don't control, and do things that make you feel more and more uncomfortable, and less interested in using services that can and do provide tremendous benefit. That is not good for anyone. It makes people less trustful of their services, and less willing to use the internet in unique and innovative ways. If there were a truly competitive broadband market, then that situation would be limited. Verizon or AT&T's bad behavior would be limited, because people could go elsewhere. But the issue we have today, in the US especially, is that for many users, there really are no other options -- which is why those companies have been repeatedly caught doing those kinds of sketchy, privacy-invasive things in ways that its paying subscribers both are kept in the dark about and given little to no way to block.So, no, these new privacy rules won't create new data markets of your browsing history -- and, yes, there are other laws in place that block them from doing truly egregious activity. But the lack of a competitive market, and the nature of online advertising, combined with the fairly stupid belief that people need to be tricked into giving up their info, creates a dangerous environment, one that will harm both end users and innovation. The former FCC privacy rules took a (very small) baby step towards preventing that kind of situation... and now they're dead.

The DOJ is proud to announce it's flexing its new Rule 41 muscle. The changes proposed in 2015 sailed past a mostly-uninterested Congress and into law, giving the FBI and other DOJ entities permission to hack computers anywhere in the world with a single warrant.With the new rules, the law has finally caught up with the FBI's activities. It deployed a Network Investigative Tool -- the FBI's nifty nickname for intrusive malware that sends identifying info from people's computers to FBI investigators -- back in 2012 during a child porn investigation and mostly got away with it. It tried it again in 2015 and ran into a bit more resistance.Rule 41's (former) jurisdictional limitations meant the FBI wasn't supposed to be able to "search" computers all over the US using a single warrant issued in Virginia. This activity was supposed to be confined to the state of Virginia. The aftermath of the Playpen investigation has led to a multitude of conflicting judicial opinions. Some have found the warrant invalid and the evidence obtained worthless. Others have granted good faith exceptions or determined no privacy violation took place. In at least one case, the government has dismissed the charges rather than expose any information about its Rule 41-flouting NIT.In this case, the FBI isn't hacking computers to uncover child porn site visitors. Instead, it's going to be fiddling with a lot of computers to take down a botnet. The DOJ press release makes particular note of how lawful this all is now, post-Rule 41 amending:

We've been following the evolutionary milestones for eSports for some time now. What was once an event class considered equal parts fringe and foreign has made impressive strides towards the mainstream in mere years. It started with a small university granting scholarships for eAthletes, progressed into the realm of coverage on sports broadcasting giant ESPN, and made yet another leap with an eSports section of the pie being carved out by the NBA.Not all progress towards the mainstream needs to be of a new type, of course, and eSports reached another milestone harkening back to its first, with the announcement that the University of Utah, a member of the Pac-12 Conference, has started its own varsity eSports program.

The governor of Idaho doesn't care about his constituents. State legislators had successfully pushed through an asset forfeiture reform bill with overwhelming support, but Governor Butch Otter vetoed it on April 6th. (h/t Ed Krayewski at Reason)The bill ran into some law enforcement resistance on its way to being passed. A 58-10 vote sent it to the governor's desk over the concerns of law enforcement, who apparently felt that law enforcement via asset forfeiture would just be too difficult if some form of actual due process was recognized.

Since Congress threw out new privacy rules for ISPs that were supposed to come into effect soon, there's been a renewed uproar on all sides of the debate about internet regulation. While the big ISPs generally want to be able to do as they please, there are smaller service providers out there that fully understand and embrace the need for privacy, net neutrality and more. One such ISP is Sonic, and this week we're joined by CEO Dane Jasper to discuss why these rules are a good thing.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Give an inch and they will take a mile, as the saying goes. This mantra applies quite nicely to the recent spate of site-blocking efforts that have taken place around the world. Once content owners, chiefly Hollywood and music groups based in America, manage to slightly open the door to having entire sites blocked by order of government, they then barge through and expand the scope of the site-blocking exponentially.And the groups doing this barging don't even bother to hide their plans. In Ireland, one can see this in the recent news of the Motion Picture Association submitting an order to have several websites blocked by ISPs there.

Trump's DOJ -- led by Jeff Sessions -- is rolling the clock back… on everything. Sessions has problems with the country's interest in decriminalizing personal marijuana use. Weed has been a big moneymaker for the FBI and DOJ, and no one likes losing paying customers -- especially not the private prisons that bad drug laws have kept full of taxpayer-supported "guests."He also wants to roll back the DOJ's Civil Rights Division to the good old days. You know, before it actually existed and/or did anything about unconstitutional policing. Even though crime rates in most cities are still at historical lows, Trump and Sessions believe the country is under siege by violent criminals, who must be dealt with in the harshest, most expensive way.Now, there's this: Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post reports the DOJ will be reversing course on the junk science it so often refers to as "forensic science."

Learn all about building and monetizing apps on the Android platform with the Ultimate Android Development Bundle. Pay what you want and you get access to a course covering the basics of building mobile Android apps. If you beat the average price for the bundle, you unlock access to 5 other courses with over 80 hours of instruction and hands-on lessons on building apps.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

For years we've noted how more than twenty states have passed laws -- often quite literally written by ISP lobbyists -- that prevent towns and cities from building their own broadband networks (either alone, or with a private partner). Even in instances where, as is often the case, the incumbent broadband provider refuses to upgrade them. ISP lobbyists (and the lawmakers that love them) usually try to defend these protectionist laws by first demonizing municipal broadband as some kind of vile socialist cabal, then pretending new state laws are necessary to protect local communities from themselves.In reality, municipal broadband is an organic, grassroots reaction to broadband market failure. And buying laws that restrict local communities' rights to decide local infrastructure matters for themselves is little more than regulatory capture. Like net neutrality and privacy rights, municipal broadband actually has broad, bipartisan support -- and most municipal broadband networks are built in Conservative markets with local voter support. But by framing the issue in a partisan way (government run amok!), ISP lobbyists have been able to sow dissent and stall progress that could challenge their status quo.A new survey of 4,000 consumers by the Pew Research Project once again drives that point home, highlighting that 70% of Americans support letting towns and cities build their own broadband networks -- if they're not getting decent service by the regional incumbent:

France's presidential election season has kicked in. The supposed "moderate" of the bunch -- Emmanuel Macron -- has managed to gain considerable support in the last several months. Some of this has sprung from our own recent election. Earlier this year, the candidate took digs at Trump's anti-climate change stance, stating France would welcome dejected US scientists with open arms.He also said this, taking a shot at Trump's planned border wall.

When it comes to bastions of hope in the video game industry on intellectual property matters, we've been happy to laud CD Projekt Red (CDPR) for getting most things right most of time. The company's stance on keeping its games DRM-free while being immensely successful has been a breath of fresh air, while its tendency towards bucking the DLC trend in gaming by not nickel-and-diming its fanbase for every last little thing. These are generally good folks, in other words, which is why it's a little disheartening to see how the company is handling the backlash over its attempt to trademark the term "Cyberpunk" in the EU.But first, some background. Cyberpunk 2020 is a pen and paper roleplaying game developed by Mike Pondsmith. CDPR announced in 2014 that it was making a game based on that system, entitled Cyberpunk 2077. To that end, it acquired the already granted US trademarks for the term "Cyberpunk", originally registered in 2011, from Pondsmith's publishing company. Cyberpunk is also, of course, a common genre term for fiction, movies, and video games. If you're asking why the USPTO ever should have granted a trademark on the singular term "Cyberpunk", the answer is obvious: it shouldn't have. The term was coined in the 80s and quickly grew in usage to the point where its an established genre of fiction. Trademarking it for the use in titles within a common medium of fiction is crazy. Yet, in the course of acquiring the rights to make the game, the original granted mark was transferred to CDPR when it began making the game, and the company likewise got a trademark registration for the full name of its game, Cyberpunk 2077.The recent uproar is because now CDPR is attempting to register the term "cyberpunk" in the EU itself, as opposed to having it transferred from a previous owner. The backlash was quite severe.

We've discussed before how difficult it is to strip law enforcement officers of qualified immunity. Courts have been spectacularly unwilling to take this protection away from cops, even when confronted with horrendous rights violations. Even in cases where the court decides a rights violation has occurred, unless it has "clearly established" precedent to work with -- something stating that this particular violation in this particular set of circumstances has resulted in the stripping of immunity before -- the officer being sued usually remains shielded from liability.So, if the court is unwilling to set the precedent, the violation can occur again and again and again until the presiding court decides it's had enough. When a case comes through where immunity has been denied -- or stripped away by a higher court -- it's immediately notable.In this case [PDF] handled by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the standard for losing qualified immunity is still high. It's just that the law enforcement officer in this case went out of his way to be an abusive asshole. The court's unwilling to let that slide.Paul Stephens and his cousin, Roan Greenwood, were guests of Greenwood's girlfriend at an apartment complex that sat atop a row of stores. They were both checking out Greenwood's girlfriend's car, attempting to track down the source of the "check engine" warning that came on right before it was parked.Deputy Nick DeGiovanni decided the two might be planning to break into the shops below the apartments. He ignored Greenwood's offer to take him up to his girlfriend's apartment to prove he had permission to be there. While he was questioning Stephens (really just demanding he produce some ID), Stephens took a call on his phone using his Bluetooth headset. It all went downhill quickly from there.

Just days after Montreal prosecutors cut loose 35 suspected Mafia members rather than disclose the details of Stingray device use by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the RCMP is admitting that, yes, it does use Stingrays.It's not like it's not known the RCMP owns Stingrays. It has for nearly a decade now. It's just that it would rather not discuss it in court… or in public… or in public records responses.The official revelation occurred in Ontario, and it didn't come as the result of a multitude of alleged criminals being released back into the general population. Instead, the (unwelcome) discussion of the RCMP's cell tower spoofers was prompted by a CBC investigation into "suspicious signals" and apparent cell phone tracking around the nation's capital.

Over the past few years we've covered what may seem like a side issue in the many legal issues facing Kim Dotcom, but it's an important one: is the US able to legally take all of his money and stuff, despite (1) him not being found guilty of anything and (2) that stuff not being anywhere near the US? As we've said, even if you think Dotcom is guilty of horrible crimes and should rot in jail, how the US is going about taking his assets should concern you massively. The fact that courts have blessed the DOJ's actions doesn't make it any less concerning.On Friday, Dotcom (along with some powerhouse legal help) asked the Supreme Court to review this issue. The real issue here is one that we've covered a lot in other contexts: civil asset forfeiture, in which the US seizes and sues stuff rather than people. That's why this lawsuit is not actually against Kim Dotcom (there are other such lawsuits), but rather the United States v. All Assets Listed in Attachment A (no, really, that's the case). Of course, "Attachment A" is all of Dotcom's assets, mostly in Hong Kong. But the situation with Dotcom takes the normal questions about asset forfeiture and adds layer upon layer of complexity.There are three specific issues that Dotcom is asking the Supreme Court to review, and all are important here. The first is whether or not a US court can allow for asset forfeiture for assets that are outside the US and outside of US government control. As the dissent pointed out in the appeals court ruling in this case, a federal court issuing a ruling is supposed to be a binding ruling, not an advisory ruling. And if the assets are held outside the US and not under the jurisdiction of the US courts, the ruling can't be binding.The second two issues are connected: and it's basically the question of whether the courts were right in saying that the federal government could take Dotcom's stuff and that Dotcom could not protest, because he was "a fugitive." Of course, he's not a "fugitive." He's just fighting extradition to a place he's never been. He isn't running away and is going through the full legal process he's entitled to in New Zealand. That's not someone hiding from the US, it's someone who is following the basic rules of due process, which the US wishes to deny him. The specific questions are at what stage of the process he can be declared a fugitive and the other is whether or not intent needs to be shown.As we have noted repeatedly, the Supreme Court rejects most requests to hear cases, but the lawyers here (Dotcom's long-term lawyer Ira Rothken along with legal giant Quinn Emanuel) have done a good job demonstrating real circuit splits in appeals courts on each of the three questions, which is often important in convincing the Supreme Court to actually take a case. As the filing notes:

So we've talked repeatedly how the shoddy security in most "internet of things" devices has resulted in increasingly-vulnerable home networks, as consumers rush to connect not-so-smart fridges, TVs and tea kettles to the home network. But this failure extends well beyond the home, since these devices have also resulted in historically-large DDoS attacks as this hardware is compromised and integrated into existing botnets (often in just a matter of minutes after being connected to the internet).Whether it's the ease in which a decidedly-clumsy ransomware attacker was able to shut down San Francisco's mass transit system, or the fact that many city-connected devices like speed cameras often feature paper mache security, you can start to see why some security experts are worried that there's a dumpster fire brewing that will, sooner rather than later, result in core infrastructure being compromised and, potentially, mass fatalities. If you ask security experts like Bruce Schneier, this isn't a matter of if -- it's a matter of when.In what should probably be seen as yet another warning shot across the bow: slightly before midnight in Dallas last Friday a hacker compromised the city's emergency warning systems and managed to set off the city's 156 warning sirens more than a dozen times. Needlessly to say, the scale of of the warning, and the number of sirens, led many people in Dallas to believe that the city had somehow been physically attacked in the middle of the night:Dallas officials were forced to shut the system down around 1:20 am on Saturday, and despite informing the public to ignore the false alarms, a city that had already been having 911 issues the last few months found its 911 systems inundated with a massive influx of calls from concerned citizens:

Late last week an important, but disappointing, ruling came down from the 9th Circuit appeals court. The ruling in the case of Mavrix Photographs v. LiveJournal found that volunteer moderators could be deemed agents of a platform, and thus it's possible that red flag knowledge of infringement by one of those volunteer moderators could lead to a platform losing its safe harbors. There are a lot of caveats there, and the ruling itself covers a lot of ground, so it's important to dig in.The case specifically involved a site hosted on LiveJournal called "Oh No They Didn't" (ONTD) which covers celebrity news. Users submit various celebrity stories, and ONTD has a bunch of volunteer moderators who determine what gets posted and what does not. Some of the images that were posted were taken by a paparazzi outfit named Mavrix. Rather than send DMCA takedowns, Mavrix went straight to court and sued LiveJournal. LiveJournal claimed that it was protected by the DMCA safe harbors as the service provider and the lower court agreed. This ruling sends the case back to the lower court, saying that its analysis of whether or not the volunteer moderators were "agents" of LiveJournal was incomplete, and suggests it tries again.There are a number of "tricky" issues involved in this case, starting with this: because ONTD became massively big and popular, LiveJournal itself got a bit more involved with ONTD, which may eventually prove to be its undoing. From the decision by the court:

Windscribe VPN is a VPN desktop application and browser extension that work together to protect your online privacy, unblock websites, and remove ads and trackers that follow you across the websites you visit every day. There are 3 subscription lengths of access with unlimited data available for an unlimited number of devices: $29 for 3 years, $39 for 5 years, and $79 for lifetime access. Windscribe does not keep logs, and you can read their privacy policy for more information.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Surprising nobody, FCC boss Ajit Pai has been privately meeting with large broadband providers, informing them he'll be taking an axe to net neutrality protections soon. What exactly this will look like isn't yet clear, especially given the massive support for the rules, and the fact that Pai can't just roll back net neutrality (and the FCC's Title II reclassification) without justifying it to the courts. But anonymous sources tell Reuters that Pai seemingly wants to replace real net neutrality protections with voluntary commitments from companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast:

Clint Watts of the Foreign Policy Research Institute testified at a Senate Intelligence Committee last week, giving his insight into Russia's propaganda machine. Like everyone else in Washington, the Senate is trying to determine how much of a role the Russian government might have played in the recent election. An FBI investigation into Trump's ties with Russia is ongoing.Watts noted Russia's attempts to influence American thinking isn't really new, nor is it solely tied to Trump's unlikely political success. He points out he began seeing major inroads being made almost three years ago. Here at Techdirt, we noticed the stateside spread of the Russian troll army, confronted directly here by Karl Bode in response to a stream of pro-Russia comments on one of his articles.Also of concern to many (although in varying degrees) is "fake news." Much of what's considered fake news tends to be in the often-partisan eye of the beholder, but a growing network of conspiracy theory sites and news outlets with Russian government ties aren't helping. Watts states this is simply more the same Cold War tactics by the Russian government, but with the advantage the internet's built-in instant amplification power.

Last December, we wrote about China reaching a rather questionable milestone: filing one million patents in a single year. As Techdirt has pointed out repeatedly, more patents do not equate to more innovation, so simply filing huge numbers of patents means very little in itself. The government of India has just found this out the hard way. As The Hindu reports, CSIR-Tech, the commercialization arm of India's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), has had to shut down its operations. The reason? It's run out of money as a result of filing too many patents:

This week, the influential voice of Unesco joined the chorus of people objecting to the addition of DRM to the HTML5 standard. Both of our winning comments on the insightful side are anonymous, came in response to an accusation of hypocrisy, in which a commenter compared the EME DRM scheme to HTTPS encryption for websites. The first-place winning response covered the key differences in purpose and function:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2012, a worrying report from the White House suggested they were still seeking a legislative solution to piracy even in the wake of SOPA's failure. Meanwhile, in an interview, the MPAA's Chris Dodd suggested backroom negotiations were already underway on that front, though the association quickly tried to backtrack those comments. But our attention was already shifting from SOPA to another even more problematic set of proposed laws: the cybersecurity bill CISPA.Viacom gained some ground in its lawsuit against YouTube when the appeals court sent the case back to the district court, though this wasn't the big win that some people portrayed it as. And given recent revelations about the Copyright Office, it's notable that five years ago this week that we were talking about its struggles to modernize and pointing out Maria Pallante's questionable grasp of the purpose of copyright.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2007, EMI — one of the few labels that occasionally showed signs of "getting it" — announced (with the help of Steve Jobs) that it would offer DRM free music through the iTunes store. Weirdly, other comments from Jobs showed that despite his anti-music-DRM stance, he was pro-DRM when it came to video (for some highly illogical reasons). Meanwhile, some record store owners were fed up and ready to point fingers at the RIAA for destroying the recording industry, the world of online guitar tablature was starting to go legit, and a judge declared DVD jukeboxes to be legal to the chagrin of DVD DRM groups. Also this week in 2007, Google and Microsoft were fighting to acquire DoubleClick while the internet advertising giant was trying to make itself even more valuable.Fifteen Years AgoToday the world frets over fake news and clickbait and propaganda and what to do about it, but this week in 2002 it was grappling with the basic early questions like how much can automated news curation and gathering replace human editors, and what happens with internet journalism in the middle of a major crisis. Courts were starting to recognize that computers were important enough to life that you can't just stop people from using them, XM satellite radio was growing much faster than we expected, and employees at various companies were struggling to get their older bosses to understand why they need wireless technology. Canada got plenty of attention this week too. It beat the US to launching a good intercarrier SMS system, and made headlines with two April Fools pranks: one in which some radio hosts managed to keep Bill Gates on the phone by masquerading as the Canadian Prime Minister, and another in which a too-convincing joke about the Finance Minister quitting his job caused the Canadian dollar to take a hit.Meanwhile, never one to shy away from colorful hyperbole, Jack Valenti called media consumers "devilish" and accused them of "terrorizing" the industry.Sixty-One Years AgoBetween subscription-based specialty cable, streaming services like Netflix, and the rise of YouTube and internet video in general, the past few years have seen the a long-standing convention begin to get dethroned: standardized half-hour and hour runtimes for TV shows. This framework is going to stick around for a long time and still play a role on network television, but cable and streaming shows are starting to get much more flexible with their runtimes (Netflix's The OA made headlines with episodes that vary wildly in length, from 30 minutes to as much as 71 minutes in the same season). But in the early 1950s and before, even the half-hour standard timeslot didn't exist yet — serial shows were instead standardized at 15 minutes. It was on April 2nd, 1956 that soap operas As The World Turns and The Edge Of Night debuted in the US as the first serial shows with half-hour episodes. People didn't like the format at first, but it would soon come to be the norm for a half-century of television.

Connecticut's legislature has managed to back into legalizing law enforcement use of weaponized drones. In writing a new drone law, lawmakers banned the use of weaponized drones, but made an exception for police. It's not a case of "Hey, let's give the cops weaponized drones!" as much as it is a case of not wanting law enforcement to be unable to have that option.As for how police will or won't be able to deploy weaponized drones, that's still up in the air (I am so sorry):

For years now, we've written about the years-long effort, led by the MPAA and others, to put DRM directly into the standard for HTML5 (via "Encrypted Media Extensions" or EME) which continues to move forward with Tim Berners-Lee acting as if there's nothing that can be done about it. It appears that not everyone agrees. Unesco, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has come out strongly against adding DRM to HTML5 in a letter sent to Tim Berners-Lee (found via Boing Boing).

For a long time now, "use a VPN" has been the default online privacy advice -- but is it really so effective? Following the recent VPN boom that came on the tails of Congress scrapping new ISP privacy rules, a few security experts have stepped forward to explain how VPNs aren't all they're cracked up to be, and choosing and using one isn't as easy as many articles and social media posts suggest. Among them are this week's guests, Kevin Riggle (who provided a quick and dirty primer with the key suggestion that most people are safer not using a VPN) and Kenn White (who assembled a list of VPNs he deems "terrible" and not without good reason, recommending a roll-your-own solution instead). They join us to dig deeper into the reality of VPNs and hopefully help some people make better choices.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

I've got a deep dive story over at The Verge, taking an in-depth look at the fight over taking the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress. I've written some about that here, but if you want to look at the full history of what's going on, and why this seemingly simple move could be a disaster for copyright on the internet, go take a read:

We've talked in the past about how government FOIA officers seem to really love exemption b(5) which covers "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." But, in my experience, I've seen a ton of the next exemption: the b(6) exemption, often called the "privacy exemption." Officially, the law (5 USC 552(b)(6)), says only that "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."That seems like a perfectly reasonable exemption. Even if it is part of a government discussion, we don't want the government revealing medical files or something of a similar nature. But, over the years, this has gotten abused in weird ways, such as the time a FOIA officer used b(6) to redact Beyonce's name in a FOIA request about Beyonce. Really.However, now I think we've seen the b(6) exemption to end all b(6) exemptions. This came to investigative reporter David Sirota, who filed a FOIA request to find out about emails between Makan Delrahim and employees of the DOJ's antitrust division. This is potentially useful info, because Delrahim was just nominated to head that very division. But, more importantly, Delrahim has been a powerful lobbyist for Anthem who tried to help it get its merger with Cigna approved -- an effort that just recently failed in court, but may have another chance with Delrahim in a position of power.Thus, Sirota made a fairly standard FOIA request for communications between Delrahim and the DOJ's antitrust division during the time that he was working as a lobbyist for Anthem. And, stunningly, the DOJ came back with a Glomar response (you know, the infamous "we can neither confirm nor deny...."), pointing to b(6) as the reason why (along with b(7)(C) which is for records that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" -- kind of a repeat of b(6), really).If you can't read that, the key paragraph notes:

Whether you're an old pro looking to keep up to date or a newbie just starting out, the Essential JavaScript Coding Bundle has you covered. For $25, you get 15 courses spanning everything from the basics of building a simple game to more advanced subjects like data visualization. You will build professional-looking websites with Bootstrap and Angular, learn about JavaScript libraries such as D3.js, develop mobile apps using Angular and Ionic, and much more.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.